25
January
2007

Smoking Ban in Wisconsin may go Nowhere

Governor Jim Doyle is expected to announce a plan to ban smoking in public places in Wisconsin. Despite its obvious merits, it’s a plan that may get bottled up in legislative committees.

leahvukmir.jpgTwo state legislators have the say so. State Senator Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) chairs the State Senate Health committee. Clearly she would be in support of the ban. The assembly is another story. Assembly Representative Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) chairs the Assembly Health committee. It is Vukmir who may bury the bill.

In the Wisconsin legislature, committee Chairmen have a tremendous amount of power. They can choose to bury a bill or they can choose to advance it in committee. If they want to bury a bill, they simply don’t schedule it.

Since Vukmir is beholden to the business lobby, she may bury Doyle’s proposal. There is one odd twist in this story. Rumors are that the Tavern League may actually be in support of a bill that would ban smoking but exempt taverns for a specified period of time. It’s not yet known where the restaurant people will fall on this issue.

An interesting side note to this story is that if Vukmir doesn’t even allow a vote on it, she may find herself in the sights of Governor Jim Doyle. If she runs, as is expected, against State Senator Jim Sullivan in four years, she may find her enemies too plentiful to overcome and since she would have to give up her Assembly seat to run for the State Senate, she’ll find herself out of work — not a good thing for a single parent. It will be interesting to see how this story unravels over the next few weeks.

Share

39 Comments

  1. Bill Stocks:

    I thought most all conservative representatives are in favor of a ban.

  2. mkelover:

    What are the “obvious merits” of a smoking ban in all public places? More government regulation of our daily lives? More government dictating what they think is good and bad for its citizens? How about the “obvious merit” of banning food high in calories? I mean, it’s better for each person plus it’s better for the collective society who then won’t have to pick up the tab of obese people who don’t have insurance or don’t have enough.

    Wouldn’t it be a better idea to ban smoking in a place where children under 18 are present who are far more suseptible to the dangers of smoking? Oh wait, that would mean banning smoking in private homes…Dems like Doyle couldn’t possibly be for that…could they???? We’ve gone this far, why not go one step further???

  3. Bill Stocks:

    Sorry, mkelover. Are you a smoker? ha

  4. mkelover:

    No, most conservatives are NOT in favor of smoking bans in private businesses. It goes against many of the planks of the conservative platform.

  5. cough:

    People can make there own decisions regarding smoking when it affects themselves and parties that they are responsible for. However, their second hand smoke puts me at greater risk for developing respiratory complications such as lung cancer; this much is proven. Should I avoid going out to public places so I can avoid the smoke? How is it my fault if I develop lung cancer? Because I chose to go where smoke was present?

    If that is going to be the line of thinking, then anyone involved in a car accident has nothing to complain about. Accidents are a known risk of driving, so people should just stay home if they want to avoid the consequences.

    Before you delve into the fact that my analogy doesn’t completely parallel the issues surrounding smoking. Remember that cigarette smoke is full of toxins that are a direct detriment to the health of those nearby. Plus, I don’t remember that last time I almost died from the person next to me eating too many cheeseburgers.

  6. Dohnal:

    Sullivan will be gone before then and Reynolds will be swept back into office

  7. Jim McGuigan:

    What are you suggesting Dohnal — that Sullivan will be called up to Iraq or are you and your recall happy clan already planning something more nefarious?

  8. Dohnal:

    Two criminal investigtions plus the OLR investigation. Public doens’t have to trust “never prosecute a democrat McCann anymore”.
    There are some new players.

  9. Jim McGuigan:

    It’s my understanding that those complaints came from you Dohnal. Just because you say them, doesn’t mean they’re true.

  10. Tom Gaertner:

    Bob…

    The only sweeping Tom will be doing is that of his print shop floors.

    You’re starting to whine, again.

    Relax with a cigar and get over it.

  11. Bill Stocks:

    Speaking on behalf of hundreds-to-thousands of UPCI members in the metro area. We are conservative and very few smoke. The ban would not bother us or the hundreds of PAW people. It is not that we think smoking is a sin, but we choose not to smoke as an organization. Just a thought. Also the UPCI and AOG members nationally as a whole don’t smoke.

  12. Watchdog Reader:

    Former pack-a-day smoker (15 years) here (5 years smoke free now) ..

    cough:

    HA: The cheeseburger comment : )!

    mkelover:

    Smokers are addictive personalities with oral fixations and chemical dependencies. The PUBLIC has the right to consider smokers UNFIT to make a clear decisions regarding what’s best in this case.

    Smoking ban has nothing at all to do with a SMOKER’S freedom to do what they want (including POLLUTING {cough: let’s start using this verbiage – not: “smoking is toxic”}) .. it has to do with NON-smokers freedom NOT to ingest POLLUTION and suffer the health-related problems/costs or become addicted. Even when I smoked I respected that.

    Think of the health care costs associated with smoking for the poor/indigent on aid effecting your tax bill. With a ban, eventually, less people will become addicted and more will quit.

    The smoking ban brings/holds down insurance costs for everyone – that’s the real reason why businesses take up this policy – they save money and keep prices lower to the end recipient. There are many places you can’t smoke already .. try to light-up in a grocery/department store …

    The PEOPLE own the PUBLIC spaces just like business owners own their businesses. Thankfully, among educated people in charge, SMOKERS are a minority – it’ll pass eventually. It’s a no-brainer. WIN/WIN/WIN/WIN.

    Bar owners: BOO HOO – SMOKING LOUNGE OUTDOORS. Less profit, you can handle it …

    Out west smokers are rare, if you light-up ANYWHERE many people will give you a glare of disgust. Many states have had these bans for YEARS and everything is fine and dandy. It is something you do privately in your home or car and should be the same in Wisconsin, because it’s a filthy habit.

    Speaking of children: personally, I became a ADDICTED as a child by ingesting my father’s (and other relatives) secondhand smoke in my home and car (which I hated at the time and SWORE I’d NEVER smoke – used to flush all cigs and throw them out the car windows a pack at a time). Unless you grew up in a completely smoke free environment, YOU probably never made the CHOICE to smoke …

    [ SIDE NOTE: Trans Fatty Acids (Partially Hydrogenated Oils and the like – READ THE INGREDIENT SIDE OF YOUR LABELS!) ARE DEADLY and turn natural fats in your body into trans fats (last to burn – collect around your heart) have been banned in the state of New York and are very close to a ban in Massachusetts. ]

  13. Bill Stocks:

    F.Y.I –

    PAW is Pentecostal Assemblies of the World
    UPCI is United Pentecostal Church International
    AOG is Assemblies of God

    Sorry, I did not explain in previous e-mail.

  14. marcus aurelius:

    Here in Minnesota I’ve discovered that air quality testing of secondhand smoke by a municipal environmental health department does not support the health hazard claims:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

    Further, it appears that the pharmaceutical nicotine giant Johnson & Johnson Company is using non-profits to make a fool of lawmakers:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

    Mark Wernimont
    P.O. Box 215
    Watertown, MN. 55388
    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

  15. John:

    Marcus- Linking to your own blog which is full of faulty data? Your argument leaves out a ton of data which is actually used to determine unsafe workplaces. Come on. Does anyone really argue anymore that secondhand smoke is not dangerous.

  16. marcus aurelius:

    John-

    The pro-smoking ban sites are not interesting in discussing issues like air quality testing, facts, or science.

    Why Are OSHA standards for employee exposure to welding smoke OK?

    Shouldn’t the same OSHA standards and air quality testing of secondhand smoke also be OK?

    The difference is that air quality testing of welding smoke is only 1 x SAFER than OSHA regulations yet there is no call for a ban on welding smoke. Meanwhile governemnet testing of secondhand smoke shows that levels are 15 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations and the pharmaceutical funded non-profits declare that a ban is necessary.

    Let’s be honest for once, a ban on tobacco smoke is necessary to justify the multi-million dollar RWJF grants to the American Lung Assoc. and others benefitting financially from an increase in pharmaceutical nicotine sales.

  17. Watchdog Reader:

    I admit, I did not go to your site, as the whole presmise seems preposterous. But yes, I understand the world’s decisions are made in back alleys.

    To use OSHA regulations on welding smoke as your argument seems wild and loose. First, welding smoke does not contain anywhere near the same toxins as cigarette smoke and OSHA can only establish that a relative amounts of safety procedures are maintained in our workplaces. We would not manufacture ANYTHING if they protected us completely …

    Also, I personally have never encountered anyone randomly welding in a restaurant/bar where I was eating or in a office workplace without ventilation.

    Can you validate your info with some references to the anything ever published in the New England Journal of Medicine?

  18. Watchdog Reader:

    oops, that post was directed toward Marcus.

  19. marcus aurelius:

    To use OSHA regulations on welding smoke as your argument seems wild and loose. First, welding smoke does not contain anywhere near the same toxins as cigarette smoke -John?

    If the justification is to protect the health of employees, then OSHA regulations ARE the proper response. As to your insinuation that secondhand smoke is more hazardous than welding smoke……you are dead wrong. Welding smoke contains berryllium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, arsenic, asbestos, carbon monoxide, and thousands of other components that are present in far heavier and far more concentrated levels.

    Furthermore regarding secondhand smoke OSHA itself has stated:

    “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”

    -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

  20. Anonymous:

    I want to preface that I am also a former smoker.

    In response to Watchdog Reader’s comments about smokers being unfit to make decisions, it would be more conducive to base these remarks on scientific data or literature, if any exists. As members of this society, they are just as much entitled to express their opinions about health policies as non-smokers. To say they are unfit violates the first amendment and goes against the civil liberties we all have.

    Nonetheless, while nicotine shares some of the key features of other substances of abuse in terms of its pharmacological effects on the shell of the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental area, it has does not pale in comparison to “harder” drugs like cocaine or heroin. These drugs, as well as others, have been shown to have significant negative effects on psychosocial functioning. While much morbidity and mortality is associated with nicotine when the route of administration is smoking, nicotine is no more of a dangerous compound than caffeine and there are no significant data that suggest nicotine greatly reduces decision-making ability or impairs psychosocial functioning. Interestingly, a 2005 article in the Harvard Health Letter briefly discussed some of the potential uses of nicotine as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, Parkison’s disease, ADHD, and other conditions. There is also literature on the potential benefits of using smokeless tobacco products as a harm-reduction approach to smoking cessation.

    To generalize smokers as people “addictive personalities with oral fixations and chemical dependencies” is extremely counterproductive. A 2004 article in Science discusses how polymorphisms and genes may play an important role in nicotine addiction; this research is one of many surrounding this topic and delves into how individuals may greatly vary in terms of their response and addictive potential to nicotine. While there exists a great amount of research on the physiological basis for addiction, there is also research suggesting that smoking behavior is influenced by peer/social groups–your father–, socioeconomic status, and education. In terms of you being a victim of addiction because of your father, the most common effect probably would have been sensitization but I am surprised you aren’t complaining of asthma or cardiovascular problems.

    In regards to ETS causing “pollution” that negatively impacts your health, much data have been misinterpreted or misconstrued to support that claim. For instance, it is fairly common knowledge that the 1992 EPA report was erroneous in its assertion that ETS is harmful. Moreover, the EPA reduced its confidence interval to 90%. This renders a p value of .10, a value that is .05 above the accepted norm of scientific significance (p

  21. Anonymous:

    Was cutoff yet again.

    This renders a p value of .10, a value that is .05 above the accepted norm of scientific significance (p less than or equal to .05). This means that there is a greatly likelihood that those results occurred by chance. Yet, many researchers still use the results from this study as the framework for ETS research.

    Considering these issues, I recommend you visit http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ for more evidence showing little to no effects of ETS. It is no surprise that this research was systematically omitted from the latest Surgeon General Report, but you can read more about that on the page. I also recommend reading an article in Environmental Law Reporter by Philip Cole entitled “Causality in Epidemiology, Health Policy, and Law.” That may give you much needed information about how to interpret research data and may help you make more informed decisions about research findings.

    Lastly, your comment that smokers receive glares of disgust highlights a great social problem. As I mentioned before, smoking is involved with significant morbidity and mortality. If smokers face such problems, then how is it remotely conducive to marginalize and stigmatize a subpopulation of people? If smokers are just addicts with oral fixations and chemical dependencies, then how does disgust help these individuals? In a 2004 article in Journal of Consumer Marketing, some heavy smokers actually reacted with defiance and disdain to anti-smoking marketing. It seems like negativity may not be a useful approach when it comes to reducing the prevalence of smoking and subsequently reducing the amount of ETS in public places.

    While I agree that ETS can have negative health consequences for some vulnerable people over a long period of time, I also firmly believe it is equally as important to reasonably accommodate a population of people who feel alienated and to not make personal or moral judgments based on their choices. I believe it is paramount that the public gains as much knowledge as possible about ETS and that includes disseminating research findings that may not necessarily agree with the Surgeon General’s report or anti-tobacco advocates. The public deserves all the available health information so they can make their own informed decisions, regardless of behaviors they may engage in.

  22. Jim McGuigan:

    Anon,
    I just spent 3 hours today with a customer who chain smoked and didn’t have the courtesy to even ask if I minded. I smell like hell and I’m now going to dump all my clothes down the clothes chute and take a shower.

    If they were sucking on tobacco lozenge or chewing tobacco flavored gum I wouldn’t have cared. But their bad habit has coated me in a smell that my wife is allergic to and I have now brought home.

    I’ll also add this — you want to put out this info which seems to me is bogus, yet you don’t want to put your real name down. If you believe in what you’re saying, then use your real name for the love of Pete.

  23. marcus aurelius:

    “I smell like hell” -Jim

    This sums up the real reason for smoking bans.

    I am a non-smoker as well, when I go out to eat, I go to non-smoking establishments, and guess what? I can figure that out all by myself without a governemnt law.

    There is a much better solution than demanding laws which effectivley close hundreds of hospitality businesses and eliminate thousands of jobs…… stay out of the establishments which allow smoking.

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

    Non-smokers certainly won’t contribute enough to the bars & restaurants after a ban to allow these establishments to remain profitable anyway.

    Here’s a small clue for you, it’s the alcohol sales that allow a hospitality establishment to remain in the black. Teetotaling non-smokers don’t make up the loss in revenue when smokers stay away, so forcing your will upon all of society is no different than mandating a law to close down 10 – 30% of the bars & restaurants in a given area. It’s selfish and arrogant.

    The tobacco control activists and non-profits on the other hand have a different motive, hundreds of millions dollars from pharmaceutical nicotine interests.

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

  24. Lori Lowling-Kwiat (Watchdog Reader):

    Marcus:
    Ridiculous argument. Welders take on that risk. OSHA can be slipped a greenback/federal kickback. No one welds in public and the smoke is not the same as the POLLUTION smokers emit anywhere they please.

    Anon:
    What a load of gobbly-gook and still no significant citings to back any of it up.

    I will not go back on anything I wrote — I want smokers to know I think it is disgusting (but it comes from a compassionate member of the tribe). 80% of them would tell you the same. No one WANTS to smoke and have to give their cash to feed the addiction.

    Nicotine is a gateway to other drugs and addicts cannot think rationally WHEN THEY ARE JONESING (average smoker-I guess-about every 30 mins). What their brain says is; “more nic”- that’s all. Because it is needed to stimulate other natural brain chemicals.

    The only thing I’ll give ya is; that I agree more cessation programs need to effectively help people off INSTEAD of the “yo-yo” programs that BIG TOBACCO to offer – programs that are designed for failure and an increased addiction.

    I have health issues related to smoking, not your business. But to diminish me for not mentioning and dismiss what I did mention is fairly rude. All smokers/their housemates and pets suffer health-related issues from smoking addictions.

    The issue is that it is NOT referred to as a DRUG and ADDICTION problem. And clearly you CHARACTERS (promoted by BIG TOBACCO are now in the pot to confuse the issues too — and further take more advantage of the ignorant. It’s a good thing no one will want to read what you wrote …

    Look up KARMA, this convo is effecting mine & THANK YOU FOR SMOKING – SMOKE MORE PLEASE AND FASTER!

    Jim: Just for Pete’s sake, I used my name, this time.

    /out

  25. Lori Lowling-Kwiat (Watchdog Reader):

    Marcus:

    Okay, close the bars too — no one really WANTS those jobs (former bartender/cocktail waitress).

    Nor do we want the social dysfunction that radiates from it being such a HUGE factor in Midwestern lifestyle.

    Who cares about the bars? Drink at home – it will be cheaper and safer.

    And, I HATE THE SMELL OF SMOKE TOO, only those with destroyed senses (from pollutants) and the addicts whos brains are stimulated by it, like it. I ALWAYS HATED IT. It’s a goood reason.

    MORE people will come to a restaurant – because it would be cleaner and more enjoyable. The owner would see more profit from less worker breaks as well! It’s such a silly argument. The waitresses/cooks may be cranky-er however??

  26. marcus aurelius:

    “Ridiculous argument. Welders take on that risk. OSHA can be slipped a greenback/federal kickback. No one welds in public and the smoke is not the same” -Lori

    So your contention is that bar and restaurant workers did not know that bars & restaurants allowed smoking when they took the job? You’d better come up with a better argument then that.

    As for kickbacks the government seems in favor of smoking bans wouldn’t you agree……therefore if OSHA is going to compromise their position they would most likely lie about air quality facts in order to support their government master.

    Finally, as to your bizarre statement that nobody welds in public……the smoking ban debate is about “protecting the health of employees”……is it your argument that manufacturing employees don’t deserve air quality safety standards?

    Welding smoke is far heavier, concentrated, and much more carcinogenic than secondhand smoke. We allow OSHA air quality standards to regulate welding smoke levels, so it only makes sense that we also allow OSHA air quality standards to regulate the far, far, less hazardous secondhand smoke levels…….unless of course you have an agenda.

  27. Angi:

    As far as noone wants to smoke, I WANT to smoke. I LIKE to smoke.

    Also as far as unfit to do anything due to their “addiction” to tobacco. I can go HOURS without a cigarette and still function normally, name me a heroin addict who can.

    As far as the science is concerned, if they don’t want to read it and understand it themselves, nothing we say will change that. That would mean making up their own minds and not being mouth pieces of the movement. If they were really serious about being anti-tobacco why is tobacco use, selling, and manufacturing not banned? Could it be the money we disgusting smokers put out is addictive? Or is it just because they NEED someone to hate? Looks to me like both answers are viable.

    If you want to make your enemy into something you can hate, you first remove his humanity. Make them only icons. When they are seen as a type (smokers, blacks, gays), and not as individuals, they are easy for a fanatical mind to grasp–and hate.–Unknown

    As you notice we are disgusting because we smoke. Apparently the good things many of us attribute to society and our neighbors, those can’t exist. Because we smoke. It doesn’t matter if we’re productive citizens of the USA because we smoke. Our citizenship is revoked because we smoke (unfit to make decisions y’know).

    On that note, what about this site? You DO want to ban smoke right? http://burningissues.org/

  28. jennifer:

    I am a non-smoker and always have been, but I do own a tavern in Milwaukee and would be devasted by the ban. If our state really feels that there is a market of people that want to be in taverns drinking and not smoking maybe Governor Jim Doyle should fund a couple himself in various areas of Milwaukee and see if they’re
    able to survive. There is one non-smoking bar in cudahy
    but even they know that most people will still be smoking, thats why they have a outside garden area for people to go and smoke. That’s great for this bar but I have no beer garden or outside area. So what, people will be outside on the street smoking causing disturbances, this seems like another issue created. I wonder how well they would do if they did not have this area.(how long would people actually stay.) Since we are so worried about second hand smoke, why don’t we start finding out how bad the the other chemicals are that we breath in every day (hair spray, aerosol cleaners, gas for our cars while pumping, perfumes, etc. etc.) I sure all this stuff is perfectly fine, right?

  29. jennifer:

    Oh, I almost forgot our governor wants to ban smoking but not allow it Potowatomi Bingo and Casino. I guess he knows that they could not afford this. Come on how could gambling and drinking survive without being able to smoke if you wanted too. Thank god he’s looking out for their big business while the corner bar I currently own will go under. Thanks again.

  30. pete:

    Jim McGuigan:
    Anon,
    I just spent 3 hours today with a customer who chain smoked and didn’t have the courtesy to even ask if I minded. I smell like hell and I’m now going to dump all my clothes down the clothes chute and take a shower.

    If they were sucking on tobacco lozenge or chewing tobacco flavored gum I wouldn’t have cared. But their bad habit has coated me in a smell that my wife is allergic to and I have now brought home.

    I’ll also add this — you want to put out this info which seems to me is bogus, yet you don’t want to put your real name down. If you believe in what you’re saying, then use your real name for the love of Pete.

    First off I would like to say as a medical professional that I do not smoke. Secondly Jim, I know for a FACT that your wife is not allergic to smoke. How do I know that do you ask? Because smoke is not an allergenic substance. Smoke is an irritant. Smoke will never cause anaphylactic shock or reactions. As a medical professional I do not encourage smoking as to “possible” health risks. I have yet to see a medical journal which exposes a scientific study which would prove secondhand smoke as detrimental. I have seen press releases from the American Lung Association but I take those with a grain of salt as they lack substance. They are the wealthiest of the not-for-profit organizations and recieve millions of dollars from the pharmaceutical companies who have in interest in selling medications to replace smoking. Even though I myself disapprove of smoking, it is not my right to decide what is right for others. This is especially true when it relates to interfering with the rights of private business. These businesses do not recieve any funding from the state, yet the state will decide how their business is to be run. In my opinion I believe this to be an infringement upon our civil liberties as an American Citizen. I believe this is only a stepping stone and one can only imagine what the government will dictate for us next. Here in Illinois, there are already proposals for “smoking licenses” so once again it is not about the health of society, but about the money. I think being a smoker or a nonsmoker should not be the issue. The issue should be of freedoms being retracted. We should all be in unison fighting the government when they attempt to handcuff us from living freely. As people have become more aware of smoking issues, more and more business went to being smoke free. This should be the decision of the business owner and its patrons, not of the government. I agree with the idea in principle, but not with the way it was handled. My concern now turns towards my children, as I want them to live in a country where we have our freedoms. That is after all, why we are all here in the first place. Thank you everyone for listening and have a great day.

  31. sally:

    smokeing should be banned to help the people. think about it less people smoking means less people sick and no more second hand smoke in public places.

  32. Jay:

    hello , i am a smoker. i think it is unfair that i have to stop smoking because someone else does not like it. why are smokers getting singled out like this. one good thing deserves another, stop drinking ( i do not drink, do not allow it in my house.)more people die by driving drunk than by driving smoking. i feel i am losing any right to free choice, i thought that is what this country was made of. i guess i was wrong, a little dictatorship never hurt anyone , right????? we as a people are losing any right to free choice.

  33. Jay:

    well , I see that the smoker lost their right to freely smoke. Now all we have to do is ban drinking. Anyone for a ban on drinking in public places?

  34. Jim McGuigan:

    Public drinking is already illegal in most public places. You can’t walk down the street with an open intoxicant unless it’s at a festival or block party.

    No one is singling out smokers. That’s just a meritless statement. Those that don’t smoke shouldn’t have our choices of places limited just because of a few people don’t want to take a few steps outside to feed their addiction.

  35. Jay:

    hello Jim , thank you for comment. I was at a Brewer’s game a few weeks ago and had a beer spilled on my pants. I do not drink , why should i smell like a brewery if i do not drink. I should stop going to a brewer game because i smoke and do not drink? Last year i had a beer spilled on me at Six Flags ( that was family fun at it’s best right?)at Six flags there are smoking area’s ( but we as smokers have no protection from the sun there and that Six Flags is outdoors , what is the problem with smoking out side , i can see not smoking while in a line for a ride.)i understand that non-smokers do not want to smell like smoke , i do not want to smell like alcohol . i made my choice as to not support the brewer’s by going to any more games. ( my choice ) i also chose not to renew my season pass for Six Flags . ( my choice again ) i can make my own choice whether to go someplace on my own without crying to the government to stop something i do not like , if you do not like what is going on at a place than chose not to go anymore. the government has enough trouble keeping them selves out of trouble without us asking them to intervene as petty as making a choice about who should do what in a bar or restaurant.

  36. Jim McGuigan:

    Hi Jay. If spilled beer was a common occurrence and the public was unable to enjoy public places, I would lend your argument more credence. However, accidentally spilled beer offers no health detriment to those who are spilled upon. Also, you can go into a bar or any other event, and the chances of having a part of a beer spilled on you are extremely remote. Having a beer spilled on you will not shorten your life, nor lead to any adverse long-term health ramifications.

    I understand that those who want to smoke without regards to those who will have to breathe the toxins they are exhaling may feel inconvenienced. However, to borrow the words of Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. But even with that example, it is clear that smoking is not a need — it is a want and an addiction and like any other addiction, the public should not be inconvenienced by an persons addiction, nor should they abdicate their right or their children’s rights to live in a healthy environment.

    If this is something you feel passionately about, I urge you to do some travel to places, especially in Europe, where smoking bans have been active for some time. You will find the ban has had no adverse impact on businesses.

    By the way, there’s a reason I rarely go out to bars anymore and it’s the smoke. I also find that if I’m on the verge of getting sick, and I go into a smoky bar, I can guarantee that I’ll be sick. So you can see why I don’t go to bars very often.

  37. Kevin:

    Hey Jim,

    Before the smoking ban you are not limited to where you dine out, you choose to not go to places that allow smoking. But you are still welcome anywhere right? If you dont like smoking dont go to where smoking is allowed, there are many palces right now that are non smoking, why do you want to make it everywhere? Why do you want to deny smokers their happiness? Who are you to say? Also and most importantly what would you like banned next to save your precious children and your health, there are many more things to choose from. Also when you were with the chain smoker no one tied you down and made you stay with him, you chose to, if you were that concerned about it you wouldn’t have, unless you dont really believe what you are saying.

  38. Kevin:

    Also Jim, why do you want smokers to stop smoking? Are you trying to save smokers lives because you care so much? Or do you not mind if smokers continue to smoke, as long as it is not around you or you little angles? I cant remember the last time I was at my local bar at 1am and saw a bunch of little kids running around, all I saw was smokers and drinkers. Why do you let your kids patronize bars? that seems silly. Would it be okay with you if bar patrons smoked if that is what the bar caters to, or would you like that stopped too so you and your kids can enjoy the bar as well. If so, when the ban starts please support as many bars as you can to help make up for loosing the smokers. You say you don’t go to bars now will you after the ban? will you donate the lost money?

  39. Nan:

    To whom it may concern: Do not take anything Lori Lowling says seriously. She is out of her mind with politics of grandure that will never happen. She does not hate the smell of smoke as she is a smoker herself. This woman is unstable and not to be trusted in anyway shape or form, so to argue with her is futile as she cannot really see the distinction between reality of what is true and physical and the reality she has created in her mind which is purely fictional. Good Luck
    #1mkefanwayoflife.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Watchdog Milwaukee is a division of Midwest Deals LLC

    Rodney's Adsense-Deluxe Add ons plugged in.
    Using Yaletown Theme for Wordpress.

    Progressive Webmasters of Wisconsin

    Next

    Random

    List